The Authority of Scripture
Catholics, in my opinion, indirectly undermine the authority of scripture, because:
- They teach errors, and claim exemption from the scrutiny of scripture. People are not allowed to look in scripture to find out if submission to the Pope is necessary for salvation.
- They subject scripture to another authority, the church. In practice they are not equivalent authorities. If you think scripture is telling you to do X and the church says do Y, you must do Y (and also unthink that the scripture said to do X).
- They use and teach the use of eisegesis (as opposed to exegesis). Instead of turning to scripture for the meaning of scripture, you must turn to the church and take it back with you to scripture.
- They deny scripture could be the only infallible teaching of the church as if God could not have done it that way.
- They say scripture is unclear, so for practical purposes we must look elsewhere for truth.
They forbid consulting scripture in the original languages. - They have in the past discouraged the study of scripture by common people, including forbidding translations and requiring people to get approval from the church to read the bible.
So while Catholics see Protestants as rebellious teenagers, because we do not submit to the Pope, in reality this is a two way street, because they do not submit to the authority of scripture. So as rhetorically effective as the “rebellion” argument may sound, it ultimately lacks substance.
The evidence in favor of the authority of scripture far outweighs that of the Pope. Scripture is constantly and verifiably correct in its teachings, but the Pope is neither. Scripture’s authority is demonstrated through its own teachings, its impact on history and the witness of the Holy Spirit.
Consider the evidence for the authority of scripture. The scripture describes God as all knowing and all powerful, and God issues His commands based on one reason only “I am the Lord your God”, so either he is a lunatic or God. But scripture’s commands are pure, demanding the highest conceivable virtues from the heart, thus demonstrating God’s holiness and omniscience. The Gospel demonstrates God’s wisdom, love, justice and mercy in ways no man could ever dream up. Its internal consistency is astounding! How could people from all walks of life over such a long period of time and from such diverse reasons and backgrounds ever pull together the masterpiece we call scripture. Scripture has been accepted by the people of God through history, despite suffering and ridicule.
Now consider the evidence for the infallibility of the Pope. Popes don’t claim to be infallible in all things, but only in matters of faith and morals. Further, most Popes never even claimed infallibility, that claim seems to conveniently originate around the time of Reformation. So scripture is consistently infallible, and Popes are not. Yet Popes have erred on matters of faith and morals, contradicting themselves and going as far as teaching the Arian heresy. The scriptures don’t contradict themselves and have never taught the Arian heresy.
So there is good reason to trust scripture, but not so the Popes.
Comments
The RCC is gigantic, so while I have hope that a great number of them are saved, I fear a great number are not. The Catholic Church does teach the essentials of the faith, thought they are surrounded by wood, hay and stubble. The danger is people will be distracted from Christ by the false doctrine, but I do think many Catholics believe the gospel, even if they are inconstant to do so.
God be with you,
Dan
God bless.
The rest just shows a poor understanding of what Catholics believe about scripture. They don't subject it to another authority. They are not required to do eisegesis. They do not forbid looking at scripture in its original languages. They do not discouraged reading the bible. So learn a little before you post.
The idea of comparing the evidence for the authority of scripture to the authority of the pope is strange. Don't you know that Catholics choose both?
As far as errors go. Again it comes down to you as the judge of what is in error. The problem is you need to know the mind of God before you judge. We always think we know more than we do.
As for the Arian heresy. Have you talked to a Jehovah's Witness lately. They see the Arian heresy in scripture. Go ahead, explain to them how clear the trinity is.
Saying "they teach errors" is just another way of saying "they disagree with me".
Even the Pope condemned a previous Pope for teaching Arianism.
I am right because I am the judge or rightness and I always agree with me.
I thought we agreed that interpretation is inherently indualistic.
The rest just shows a poor understanding of what Catholics believe about scripture. They don't subject it to another authority. They are not required to do eisegesis. They do not forbid looking at scripture in its original languages. They do not discouraged reading the bible.
As for the last two (reading the bible and the original languages), are you just distinguishing then vs. now? If so, isn’t that a change in doctrine?
As for authority and eisegesis, I am not sure what to make of your claim. You say you hold to its authority and don’t subject it to another, but at the same time, you denied it’s authority to correct with regard to correcting Jehovah's Witness on the Divinity of the Son of God. If you are saying we base the doctrine of Divinity of the Son of God, not on scripture, but on the Pope, and we use what the Pope tells us to understand scripture on this point; well that’s eisegesis.
While I want to maintain my claim that Catholics “indirectly undermine the authority of scripture”, perhaps I could soften it a little. At best, I could say Catholics inconsistently hold that scriptures are and are not authoritative and inconsistently teach that eisegesis is and is not wrong.
God be with you,
Dan